Measuring Emotion Regulation in Forensic Populations

Adam Meddeb, Carlo Garofalo, Steven M. Gillespie, Josanne M. D. van Dongen, Malin Hildebrand Karlén, Märta Wallinius

Lund University, University of Perugia, University of Liverpool, Erasmus University Rotterdam, University of Gothenburg

2025-06-24

Background

  • Emotion regulation is increasingly being studied within forensic psychological research
  • Robust associations are found between ER and aggression1 and a variety of externalizing behaviors including intimate partner violence, substance abuse and psychopathy
  • ER is now considered to be an evidence based dynamic risk factor for sexual reoffending2

Background continued

  • While the evidence-base for ER as a clinical construct of interest in forensic psychology has grown, debate has persisted as to what constitutes ER.

  • Previous systematic reviews of ER within child and adolescent samples has found great heterogeniety in how ER is measured and less then half of the 87 measures identified where judged to be psychometrically sound.

Aim

Review how emotion regulation is measured and conceptualized across forensic settings and how well identified measures perform in terms of reliability and validity.

Method

  • A search strategy was designed similar to previous systematic reviews and meta-analysis (e.g. Aldao et al., 2010, Sloan et al., 2017) which was published at PROSPERO in December 2023

  • We coded which measures were used to measure ER as well as;

    • which variables were measured conjointly with ER
    • and how well measures of ER correlated with such variables and
    • which reliability estimates that were reported for each ER measure.

Results - overview

Figure 1
  • Identified over 1000 studies
  • Most studies were excluded at the second screening due to “wrong measurement”

Sample - overview

Some basic characteristics of the sample of studies we included in our systematic review

Results - measures

Resluts continued

Strategy ERQ CERQ CECS PACS Biophysiological
Suppression ✓ ✓ ✓
Reappraise situation ✓ ✓ ✓
Self-blame ✓
Blaming others ✓
Acceptance ✓
Refocus on planning ✓
Positive refocusing ✓
Rumination ✓
Putting into perspective ✓
Catastrophizing ✓
Relaxation ✓
Count to 10 ✓
Walk away ✓
Distraction ✓ ✓
Ask for help ✓
Use humour ✓
Be assertive ✓

There is variability in terms of: (1) the number of strategies included in each measure; and (2) which measures that are included

Results - reliability

Results - validity

Validity

Validity support k Percentage %.
Support of validity 4 17%
Mixed support 19 79%
No support 1 4%
Total 24 100%

Discussion points

  1. Reliability

  2. Measurement issues

  3. Conceptual issues

Reliability

  • Reliability needs to be consistently reported for each sample and at the appropriate level of analysis.

  • Amongst the 59 studies included in the review, only 64% reported reliability estimates for their specific sample.

  • Reliability needs to be viewed in light of theoretical considerations.

Measurement issues

  • Choosing a measurement model is also embracing a specific theoretical model of the construct being measured.

  • Few measures of ER have been psychometrically evaluated within a forensic setting.

  • Measures of ER vary greatly in terms of:

    • conceptual scope
    • which emotions are being regulated
    • which strategies that are being assessed

Conceptual issues

  • The concept of ER had to be inferred based on the measurement model. The concept of ER was rarely explicitly outlined.

  • Conceptual differences exist between measures as to which strategies that are assumed to be adaptive and maladaptive respectively.

Limitations

  • Validity was assessed in terms of correlations and we aggregated across operationalizations

  • It is possible that studies were overlooked that did not specifically discuss their results in relation to emotion regulation

  • Although two authors screened the studies, only one extracted data.

Thank you for your attention!